CT Rear End Deep Dive (har har)

[Sirfun]

Started studying the video from a few weeks ago out of Palo Alto, and was particularly interested in the rear end:

Several observations:

• the photo above’s angle emphasizes that the rear “window” is really more of a rear peephole; expected this when the years old ride-along video showed, below, a video-only rear view mirror

The more recent beta photo from the front, given some “computer enhance” adjustments for visibility, highlights the tech cluster up there behind the video rear view “mirror”:

• is that vault cover partially deployed, or is that as tucked in as it gets? Wonder how much that hangs past the rear window. Nice for shade, not nice for fitting furniture in the bed. Based on photos of earlier prototype beds, I’ve long thought that the reveal day tout of a 6’ bed is a bit slippery. The floor of the bed may be 6’, but the angle of the bulkhead appears to reduce the aperture by several inches. And if this vault cover adds a few more, it could end up a sub-5’6” bed aperture.

• Given the clean lines of the tailgate area, I can only assume this is the rear-facing rear view camera (given its height):

At another angle in the video, we can see this camera (?) housing has a theme-consistent wedge design:

• the next thing I noticed, is the body’s overall lack of “V” shape compared to past prototypes. Here they are alongside each other:

• above photo of an earlier prototype also provides a stark contrast to the newer prototype’s far less busy rear break/running light approach (contrast the below photo with break lights engaged vs the further first photo of the post with only taillights:

• the last two photos also emphasize the newer prototype’s larger black bar/trim running the top of the tailgate. (I suppose it’s possible - but unlikely - that this black bar conceales a full length running/taillight like seen in earlier protos, but which in the new proto is blacked out in daylight and only illuminates at night?)

• next, this rear photo - subjected to some more “computer enhance” for visibility, highlights some details about the new rear bumper (and aerodynamics?) kit below the tailgate:

If a person looks close enough and squints, they still might not make out any hitch point cover of some sort, obscuring an otherwise unobvious location that should be directly below the license plate/step cutout.

• another angle gives some additional detail on the rear bumper license plate/step area, including probably reverse lights (in red) and a cheeky little marker light/sensor/camera housing (in blue) at the corners giving both side and rear coverage (seen also in earlier prototypes):

• another noticeable design alteration highlighted by the rear view regards the reduced width and aggressiveness of the fender flares, note new vs old:

• also noticeable is a design change in the upper corners of the tailgate design. In the new prototype, the running/break light housing appears to a part of the rear quarter panel/sail, more like a traditional truck design, contrasted with earlier prototypes that appear to have housed the tailight in the tailgate itself:

VS

from a safety perspective, this movement of the tailight housing is probably driven by thefact that taillights should/must still be visible when the tailgate is down.

This design change would introduce a gap in any rear tailight bar, which gap prior designs avoided by having the entire length of the tailgate contiguous. The new configuration wouldn’t allow for a tailight design such as seen in earlier prototypes:

Curiously, the new prototype’s change would seem to make for an oddly shaped tailgate, with double the number of corners when down:

• visible at various glints are two anomalies on the top sides of each of sails:

unclear if these are merely access points for trim/panel fastening, or instead covers over some sort of attachment point for accessories, like racks, or tie-downs. Looking back over earlier prototype vids, there are parallel anomalies in these spots:

Cool write-up. Just adding these for you:

See how this version and the first prototype had to have a second set of taillights, for when the tailgate is down. This latest version with cutout around the taillights gets around that issue. The taillights are built into the body, and don't go down with the tailgate.

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

A couple of other things:

1. Seems to me that the front angle under the lights are also less steep. Overall proportions are closer to the squashed nose version we saw with the first 4WS
2. Side wall vertical angles are less, but not by much, as Ogre pointed out there's camera optics involved.
3. The sidewalls also seem to be flatter horizontally, in some photos (and even drawings) the sides seem to be bowed from front to rear, along the midline. I've been struggling to reconcile what it really is for years, without seeing it myself and without lens distortion.
4. Same with the windscreen that is/should be curved (making it stronger and better for aero)
5. Tyres are definitely skinnier, which is what they need to do for aero and rolling resistance. They also have a larger offset to get them flush with the wheel flare and also seem to have a more tapered cross section, meaning there is even less tread touching the road than the original, that had tread the full width of the tyre on the road.
6. Because of this they could reduce the wheel flares (by about an inch or more), and still have enough space in the rear wheel wells for 4WS. This has always been very close, as in the bed they actually have an extra crease in the bed sidewalls, to widen the rear wheel well enough to fit the tyre at all.
7. I'm hoping there is a rear cover for the tow hitch, but with three hitch receptacles spaced out to carry an implement with, with greater capacity than a single hitch, and better torsional support
8. A hitch receiver on the front, or three would be great as well
9. No sidesail gaps on this one either - will we get a full rear fender lift? From the look of it the wheel flares go behind the fender SS panel, and there's a gap between them. The casting photo had the rear wheel arches cast in, creating a separate structural part on top of which the storage could sit. Previously the plastic flares were mounted on the fender. It could also be the reason why the charge port has moved to the flare instead, so you can open the whole side while it's plugged in. That would be epic if it all opened, possibly even with access under the bed?
10. I'm pretty sure the extra bulge under the bumper is to create enough storage space under the bed to put in a optional spare wheel. That subframe will also bring the hitch receiver down, and offer a bit of a rear aero diffuser. 4 functions in one, so worth the compromised departure angle, but in saying that the wheel portion itself still has a better bumper angle, as the bulge is not full width..
11. The rear lights were already changed on the Rogan factory drive pictures, and there's you can clearly see a much larger access panel in the top of the bed that would fit the spare, instead of that small one in the reveal.
12. Overall I think they tidied up the dimensions and took all the slack out by adjusting angles and positions. I think the cab is the same volume, possibly bigger (I think they moved the roof apex forward) the bed floor length the same, but the overall length is the 3% shorter, that EM mentioned, and then went back on. Less car and more space = better value.

 

[Rallo]

Maybe the sides had to be straightened to help with the overall reduction (wasn’t it 5%?) that they ended up making in the design. The angle is subtle in the prototype. I would’ve preferred the tailgate light bar to go full but can see how having taillights cutout would eliminate the need for a second set of tail lights.

 

[JBee]

There was about 5-6 feet in front of the drivers feet to play with to reduce the length if they really wanted to, but the issue was more likely that they can only change the look of the prototype so much, so it ended up becoming a trimming and angle optimising exercise.

Another thing I noticed on the latest rear end photo is the length of the underneath rear suspension arms. I'm fairly certain the alphas were all using a MX suspension setup that had limited height adjustment to the point the suspension arm angles would kill the CV joints on the driveshafts if lifted to far. This later version looks much longer, meaning the CV angle is less, so more power can be put down.

BTW this is also why the MS Plaid has to cheetah squat in launch mode under full power, because they have to keep The CV's straight or risk them blowing out.
It's highly likely that suspension height settings will restrict horsepower output, especially on a QM CT. It has way to much power for offroad anyway, but I doubt they can offer a decent warranty for offroad without throttling the power according to terrain. Likely to be integrated into their version of "Terrain Response" where the CT would automatically detect and setup the vehicle according to the undulations and surface conditions of what you are driving over.

 

[Rallo]

Cool write-up. Just adding these for you:

Does this mean there won’t be a ramp anymore?

 

[RVAC]

To a degree this may just be ‘different strokes for different folks.’ But maybe I also didn’t express myself fully.

When the OG CyberTruck was revealed, its rear light bar seemed to me pretty forward-looking at the time. In fact it was. But now it is the future (compared to 2019), and so there are plenty of things like this on the market (or aftermarket) now:

Which to me means these sorts of light bars haven’t aged well on the CT, at least to the extent it’s aesthetic intent is to continue to be interesting.

Which brings me to the more recent prototype. When I said it looks “more revisionist 1980s future (ala Bladerunner),” I meant it is leaning toward a ‘Stranger Things’ sort of aesthetic that is interesting to me.

Afterall, check out Deckart’s sedan:

None of this to convince you to share my tastes, only instead to say that I think it’s an interesting move for the CT to rethink an approach to light bars that was maybe easier to wow in 2019 than today.

They didn't rethink the design because it would look better per se, it was a cost cutting measure so that it would save them money by not having to add that secondary set of lights when the tailgate is down.

There's a fine line between retro futuristic design and actually looking like something that was made in the 1980's. The new light bar is decidedly the latter imo, just like the photos you posted the Blade Runner sedan was made in the 1980's and it shows. What I think the original Cybertruck did so well was take that aesthetic but making it contemporary as opposed to cosplaying as a 1980's movie prop.

 

[Albern]

Does this mean there won’t be a ramp anymore?

Can't say for sure the status of load mode and the ramp but it hasn't made an appearance on any of the subsequent CT builds. In addition to not knowing what features will make it to production, we can only say that these trucks aren't feature-complete. I am still hopeful that it'll be there.

 

[cvalue13]

The new light bar is decidedly the latter imo,

seems like maybe we’re talking past one-another? Because I’ve been talking about the back end, which appears to no longer have a light bar.

In any event, this chat is just natural preview to the ultimate reveal: different folks will like or dislike every little nit.

 

[TyPope]

Does this mean there won’t be a ramp anymore?

Maybe the top will hinge down to let you pull the ramp out. You'd think at this point, all the models they build would be really close to production but they could skip out things that aren't necessary for whatever test or purpose each model was made for.

 

[greggertruck]

A pic for the collection

 

[ED_SFO]

Can't say for sure the status of load mode and the ramp but it hasn't made an appearance on any of the subsequent CT builds. In addition to not knowing what features will make it to production, we can only say that these trucks aren't feature-complete. I am still hopeful that it'll be there.

The tailgate is still pretty thick, if there was no ramp why make it so thick. I'm hoping thick means there's a ramp in there somewhere, although that ramp must be very heavy. Mar 1st right around the corner!!

 

[RVAC]

seems like maybe we’re talking past one-another? Because I’ve been talking about the back end, which appears to no longer have a light bar.

In any event, this chat is just natural preview to the ultimate reveal: different folks will like or dislike every little nit.

We're on the same page, I keep referring to it as a light bar because there is still a bar that spans the entire width.

I'm a big fan of the design on the original prototype so I know I'm pretty much guaranteed to be disappointed, at this point with every prototype I see there's more fear building than excitement for the final reveal

 

[cvalue13]

A pic for the collection

That alpha proto MUST be huge compared to the Palo Alto beta being discussed. Even with that alpha proto having massive tires compared to the Palo Alto proto, which should make the alpha tailgate area appear smaller - it just looks massive

 

[Crissa]

Maybe the top will hinge down to let you pull the ramp out. You'd think at this point, all the models they build would be really close to production but they could skip out things that aren't necessary for whatever test or purpose each model was made for.

They do! That's why we don't see wheel covers on them, or finished tail lights on the other, or the completely unfinished dash controls on another...

The ones without enough to be road worthy we don't get to see at all.

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

The recent thread with the aerial/overhead video of the CT at one point captures the CT at an overhead angle that was familiar. A year ago there was another aerial video of a CT at the Fremont factory.

Here they are juxtaposed, with the recent video CT on top and the year old video CT on bottom:

Now, first things first: none of this should be taken as intended as remotely definitive, as the camera plays tricks with the CT in the best of cases, and the two photos above also obviously have minor perspective differences. Accordingly, this is just fun conjecture with only an appearance of any analytical seriousness.

That said, comparing the two photos does seem to suggest some differences in proportions. And, while it’s particularly perilous to try and compare proportions between the two photos (eg “windshield in new CT appears longer than windshield in old CT”), there’s probably slightly better reason to compare relevant proportions within a photo to the same relevant proportions in the other photo (e.g. “the ratio of windshield to hood in the first photo appears different from the ratio of windshield to hood in the second photo”).

Still, I thought it would be interesting to adjust the photos based on assumed shared lengths. In the next photo, I assume the two CTs have an ~same wheelbase, and adjust the photo size to standardize that measurement. In the photo after that, I instead size-correct the photos to assume the two CTs have ~same nose-to-tail length, and adjust the photos for that measurement.

We know nothing to suggest these two CTs aren’t identical in both wheelbase and length, and any resulting apparent differences in the photos might merely perspective oddities.

Still, some moderately interesting things appear when attempting to standardize either wheelbase or overall length.

In the above photo I’ve adjusted the phot sizes to assume ~same wheelbase, and a few things this comparison suggest appear to be consistent with an off-the-cuff glance at the originals.

For one, the apex of the cab of the old CT appears to be at a shallower angle and the peak further back towards the rear wheel. Recent proto videos do seem to have a slightly taller proportion of the cab.

For two, the length of older CT appears a bit longer, but in an interesting proportion: overall, the older CT appears shifted towards the rear - a little stubbier in the front, but towards the back a good bit longer. That backwards-shifting proportion of the older CT seems consistent with the similarly backwards-shifted apex of the cab. In all, if the two protos wheelbases are assumed ~same, the newer CT appears to have the center mass of the body shifted a bit forward, and to be nonetheless a bit shorter in apparent bed length. (Note for example the distance between the back side rear corner of the rear fender flare and the tailgate’s bottom corner.

The wheelbase comparison is a bit muddied by the fact that either (1) the newer CT is on far larger wheels/tires, or (2) the tires are closer in size than they appear and the real distortion is that the old CT is considerably larger than the newer CT.

Finally, note that if the newer CT has in fact a narrower wheelbase than the older CT, it would mean that the older CT appears considerably longer than the newer CT. If so, in increasing the picture size of the new CT to match the wheelbase of the old CT, it would mean I have scaled up the size of the newer CT to appear longer than it is.

I will say that since the CT release’s figures on wheelbase, it always seemed odd that it purported to have 5” longer wheelbase but ~length as an F150 SuperCab:

CT:

Wheelbase	149.9 in
Length	231.7 in

F150 SuperCab w/6.5’ box or SuperCrew w/5.5’ box:

Wheelbase	145 in
Length	231.9 in

(FYI, original stats for CT width are also ~identical to an F150 SuperCrew - a regulatory-ducking hair below 80”)

If Tesla has since slightly shortened the wheelbase of the CT, it would mean the above comparison by identical wheelbase has over-scales the newer CT proto. I can’t imagine Tesla to have lengthened the wheelbase.

So the above photo guesstimates differences in how the body relates to an assumed identical wheelbase, with the old CT appearing a bit pushed back and longer in total length. If instead the newer CT wheelbase is at all smaller than the older CT, the newer CT’s proportions are incorrectly large/too long in my above comparison.

What if instead we assume the old and new CT protos are instead ~identical in total nose-to-tail length?

Interestingly, if we assume they’re ~same length, a few things jump out:

• the cab apex appears ~identical in proportions (even if the newer one still appears a bit ‘taller’)

• the already discussed shift in center mass of the body relative to the wheels here presents itself again, with the old CT having both the wheel sets pushed a bit forward towards the nose.

• interestingly, the bed of the older CT again appears a bit longer - this time seen by the forward-most corner of the vault cover.

HOWEVER, in scaling the front and rear corners of the two trucks to the same length, what jumps out is that the newer CT appears overall massive compared to the older CT. Not only does that seem an unlikely direction for Tesla to have taken, the newer CT in the video does not have the regulatory-required marker lights for vehicles wider than 80”. Overall, scaling the newer CT to be the same apparent length of the older CT causes the photo comparison to seem out of proportion, to my eye, and with the consequence being the newer CT appears overall unreasonably larger - in height, width, etc. - than the older CT.

That might cause one to include that in fact the two aren’t the same length, and that the newer CT has been over-scaled in my conparison of nose-to-tail length. Resukting inference being that the newer CT is actually shorter than the older CT (perhaps with the same wheelbase).

If so, that would also mean the newer CT is shorter than an F150 SuperCrew (the original CT measurements).

The notion that the newer CT is shorter than the older CT would square with the notion that at best (A) the wheelbase is ~same, and the newer CT is a bit shorter as seen in the first wheelbase comparison photo, or (B) possible but unlikely, that the newer CT wheelbase is narrower than the older CT, and so that much shorter in length than the older CT than the wheelbase comparison photo suggested.

Either possibility (A) or (B) is consistent with the earlier observation about the difference in tires being run by the two truck while the newer CT may be on somewhat larger tires than the older CT, surely they aren’t THAT much bigger, and so the appearance of massively larger tires is instead attributable to the newer CT being a bit smaller in stature.

All that whimsical guessing and conjecture aside, the two photos juxtaposed do overall appear to suggest a few things:

• the wheel wells of the older CT appear wider in the mouth facing the tires; notice the apparently smaller angle of the top two flare corners in the newer CT compared to the older CT

• if the older CT’’s flares are in fact at wider corner angles, that would mean the appearance of the longer length from the wheel well to the bottom corner of the tailgate is even greater than it appears in the photos

• in the older CT, the vault cover (if not the bed itself) does seem to be longer/more rectangular than that of the newer CT, which is that much closer to square-shaped; that said, the trim piece just forward of the cover is larger on the newer CT, perhaps meaning they’ve simply needed more space for the cover to retract into, leaving the cover itself more towards square shaped

• notice the strips of stainless steel around the side windows: either (i) the two photos are appropriately scaled and so these stainless strips around the windows are noticeably wider in the newer CT, or (2) the stainless strips are in fact ~same in width, but the appearance otherwise is caused by the photos being out of scale, with the older CT photo scaled downward too far.

I’ll wrap up by saying I’ve been sick in bed a few days, and the combo of time to kill and meds are spurring some lengthy, convoluted, CT sleuthing

Sponsored